- •Investment Case 11
- •Valuation summary 37
- •Investment case 53
- •Investment Case
- •Companies Compared Stock data
- •Key metrics
- •Per ha comparison
- •Management credibility
- •Market Overview Summary
- •Ukraine in global context Ukraine produces 2-3% of world soft commodities
- •Sunflower oil, corn, wheat, barley and rapeseed are Ukraine’s key soft commodities to export
- •Ukraine is 8th in arable land globally
- •Key inputs used in crop farming Ukraine`s climate favorable for low-cost agriculture
- •Soil fertility map
- •Machinery use far below developed countries
- •Land trade moratorium makes more benefits
- •Fertilizer use
- •Inputs prices: lease cost is Ukraine’s key cost advantage
- •Case study: Production costs in Ukraine vs. Brazil for corn and soybean
- •Farming Efficiency Ukrainian crop yields lag the eu and us, on par with Argentina and Brazil, above Russia’s
- •5Y average yields, t/ha and their respective 10y cagRs
- •Yields at a premium in Ukraine on the company level
- •Growth Growth should come from yield improvement, crop structure reshuffle and acreage increase
- •Crop structure is gradually shifting to more profitable cultures
- •Combined crop structure of listed companies
- •Ukraine`s 2012 harvest outlook
- •Valuation
- •Valuation summary
- •Valuation summary
- •Asset-based approach
- •Asset-based valuation
- •Valuation premium/discount summary
- •Location matters: Value of land by region
- •Yields efficiency comparing to benchmark region
- •Cost efficiency
- •Adding supplementary businesses
- •Valuation summary for other assets
- •Cost of equity assumptions
- •Model assumptions
- •Landbank growth capped at 30%
- •Crop structure
- •Biological revaluation (ias 41) excluded
- •Land ownership
- •Company Profiles Agroton a high cost producer
- •Investment case
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Agroton in six charts
- •Operati
- •Industrial Milk Company Corn story
- •Investment case
- •A focus on the corn explains high margins
- •Location favourable for corn
- •Well on track with ipo proceeds
- •Weak ebitda margin in 2012 explained by non-cash items
- •Valuation
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Ksg Agro On the road to space/Not ready to be public
- •Investment Case
- •A 5x yoy boost in total assets looks strange to us
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Ksg Agro in six charts
- •Mcb Agricole Acquisition target with lack of positives for minorities
- •Investment Case
- •Inventories balance, usd mln
- •Overview of acquisitions of public farming companies in Ukraine
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement, usd mln
- •Mcb Agricole in six charts
- •Mriya Too sweet to be true
- •Investment Case
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Mriya in six charts
- •Sintal Agriculture
- •Investment Case
- •25% Yoy cost reduction in 2011 should improve margins
- •Irrigation is a growth option
- •Inventory balance, usd mln
- •Valuation
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Sintal Agriculture in six charts
- •Astarta Sugar maker
- •Kernel Grain trader actively integrating upstream
- •Poultry producer
- •Appendices Land value
- •Current landowner income capitalization model
- •Farmer income capitalization model
- •Normative value
- •Biological asset revaluation
- •How do we adjust the income statement to be on a cost basis?
- •Ias 41 application summary
- •Appendix: Crop production schedule Crop schedule, based on 2012 harvesting year
- •Investment ratings
- •Contacts
Operating assumptions
Crops segment assumptions
|
2009 |
2010 |
2011E |
2012E |
2013E |
2014E |
2015E |
2016E |
2017E |
2018E |
2019E |
2020E |
Land bank |
|
99 |
99 |
145 |
145 |
145 |
145 |
145 |
145 |
145 |
145 |
145 |
Planted acreage (ths ha) |
79 |
80 |
83 |
102 |
123 |
131 |
131 |
131 |
131 |
131 |
131 |
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acreage breakdown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheat |
60% |
45% |
23% |
31% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
Corn |
8% |
6% |
9% |
14% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
Barley |
11% |
10% |
11% |
16% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
Rapeseed |
|
7% |
20% |
9% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
Soy |
9% |
10% |
12% |
11% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
Sunflower |
7% |
18% |
25% |
20% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
Other |
5% |
4% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crop yields, t/ha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheat |
4.6 |
2.4 |
3.0 |
2.7 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
Corn |
6.2 |
4.2 |
5.0 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
4.2 |
4.3 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
Barley |
3.1 |
1.9 |
2.6 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
Rapeseed |
0.0 |
1.5 |
2.6 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
Soy |
2.2 |
2.0 |
1.7 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
Sunflower |
1.8 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.3 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing year data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, USD/ha |
442 |
415 |
610 |
496 |
500 |
521 |
542 |
563 |
586 |
610 |
635 |
660 |
Costs, USD/ha |
405 |
387 |
290 |
309 |
306 |
317 |
329 |
340 |
351 |
362 |
374 |
386 |
Gross profit, USD/ha |
37 |
27 |
321 |
187 |
194 |
203 |
212 |
224 |
236 |
248 |
261 |
275 |
Gross margin, MY |
8% |
7% |
53% |
38% |
39% |
39% |
39% |
40% |
40% |
41% |
41% |
42% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar year figures, USD mln |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
24.9 |
25.7 |
46.5 |
49.0 |
57.2 |
64.2 |
68.4 |
71.7 |
74.8 |
77.9 |
81.1 |
84.4 |
Gross profit |
7.6 |
8.1 |
14.9 |
22.2 |
21.9 |
25.0 |
26.8 |
28.3 |
29.9 |
31.5 |
33.2 |
34.9 |
Gross margin |
31% |
32% |
32% |
45% |
38% |
39% |
39% |
39% |
40% |
40% |
41% |
41% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories balance, USD mln |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural produce at year start |
3.3 |
13.2 |
20.8 |
25.0 |
26.4 |
30.8 |
34.6 |
36.8 |
38.6 |
40.3 |
42.0 |
43.7 |
Value of harvest |
34.8 |
33.2 |
50.7 |
50.4 |
61.7 |
67.9 |
70.7 |
73.5 |
76.5 |
79.6 |
82.8 |
86.1 |
Sales |
24.9 |
25.7 |
46.5 |
49.0 |
57.2 |
64.2 |
68.4 |
71.7 |
74.8 |
77.9 |
81.1 |
84.4 |
old year sales |
13% |
52% |
45% |
51% |
46% |
48% |
51% |
51% |
52% |
52% |
52% |
52% |
new year sales |
87% |
48% |
55% |
49% |
54% |
52% |
49% |
49% |
48% |
48% |
48% |
48% |
Sales as % of supply |
65% |
55% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
65% |
Agricultural produce at year end |
13.2 |
20.8 |
25.0 |
26.4 |
30.8 |
34.6 |
36.8 |
38.6 |
40.3 |
42.0 |
43.7 |
45.4 |
Source: Company data, Concorde Capital estimates